Both Ways

June 18, 2007
     It seems to me you can call the situation in Iraq a lot of things, but it's not a war. Not at this point, anyway. Call it an unsuccessful nation-building project, a failed occupation, a botched policing job, a monkey-in-the-middle clusterfuck. All the US political factions, from left to right, do the public a disservice by calling it a war, because it misrepresents what we're doing there.

      We're involved in Iraq because we don't want to begin thinking about modifying our behavior at home. We are desperate to preserve our access to Middle East oil because that is the only way we can keep running our society the way we're used to running it. Mostly, we don't want to face the tragic misinvestments we've made in the infrastructure of happy motoring, and we don't want to face the inconvenient truth that there really isn't any combination of alt.fuels that will permit us to keep running all the cars the way we like to run them. Either we keep getting the oil or say goodbye to the American Dream Version 2.K.

     The public has now decided that this nation's primary mission is to find some magic way to keep the cars running on a fuel other than gasoline. Everyone from the greenest greenies to the most medieval-minded Kansas Republican senator has joined in this collective wish. They are certain to be disappointed. All the Priuses in the world will not avail to save the Drive-In Utopia. The public will learn painfully what Iraq is all about.

     Every time somebody blames the politicians for this predicament, I'm reminded that the politicians are actually doing a fine job of representing what their constituents want. What they want is to not change their behavior. Not even the science and technology folks want to think about changing our behavior. They just want to find new ways to continue the old behavior. They're invested in the triumphal effort to come up with a happy motoring rescue remedy. Their techno-cred is on the line. They all want to be the first kid in their housing subdivision to run a car on dark matter.

     So, we've gone to Iraq on the quixotic mission to stabilize-and-pacify this key territory in the greater region of the Middle East, so we can keep getting oil imports out of there in a reliable and orderly way, so we can keep on driving all our cars. And the whole thing has turned out rather badly.

      Now there is another consensus forming. Across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right, elected officials are now clamoring to "stop the war in Iraq." By this they mean get US troops out. What cracks me up is their juvenile belief that being there is somehow optional for us, that we can keep on running Wal Mart and Walt Disney World without paying any price for it in the costs of policing the Middle East.

     If we don't maintain a military presence in Iraq, it is perfectly plain what will happen: Iran will instantly gain control of the southern Iraq oil fields. Iraq doesn't have an army anymore. It is incapable of preventing Iran from acquiring control of its territory. From that vantage, Iran would also effectively threaten the sovereign existence of Kuwait. Then there is the question of how much instability Iran could generate next door in the Shia-dominated Persian Gulf shoreline region of Saudi Arabia, where most of that nation's oil lies. (Meanwhile, there will be plenty more Iran-inspired mayhem in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.)

     It seems to me the answer to all this is clear: the first thing the US has to do is reach a different consensus about our behavior here at home, starting with the proposition that the happy motoring era must end. If we're not willing to do that, we're eventually going to lose both at home and in our struggles abroad. You can be sure that coming disturbances in the oil markets will make suburban life untenable while exhaustion and bankruptcy breaks our military.

     The air waves and internet sites are full of blather now about ending the "war" and bringing the troops home. The presidential candidates are agonizing over their various positions on the Iraq adventure. I'd like to hear one of them tell me how Atlanta is going to function without Middle Eastern oil, or how Wal Mart will move its merchandise from San Pedro to Lansing without a "warehouse on wheels," or how the thousands of yellow school bus fleets will carry on next September.

     Actually, instead, I'd like to hear talk about drastically reforming our zoning laws to discourage any more suburban development or a pitch to allow some of our tax money to fund a US passenger rail revival. I'd like to see a candidate refuse to attend a Nascar race on the grounds that it's an unconscionably stupid fucking waste of energy resources. I'm waiting for one of these birds to tell the American people the truth: you can't have it both ways. you can't get our military out of the Middle East without changing the way we live.

Comments

[greenbeans]

Amen, Jim, tell it like it is, brother.

[MicroHydro]

The US occupation of Iraq, even if it had been successful, would not have extended US happy motoring at all. Geological limits still apply. On the other hand, whether the oil fields are under the control of Saddam or some other villian doesn't matter either. Whatever warlord controls the sand will want to sell as much oil as possible on the world market to the highest bidders.

Bottom line, Iraq was invaded for several reasons, but the protecting the lifestyles of suburban 'Murkans was not one of them.

[jonst]

Overall I enjoyed this post. And, in general, side with it. But the stuff about Iran taking control over southern Iraqi oilfields, and worse, threatening other Arab nations is pure nonsense. Nothing would galvanize the Arabs nations more. And what, in the world, makes you think that the people that now control the oil in the south of Iraq would simply allow Persians, Shia or not, to waltz in and take control of their territory? What, in history, points to that scenario? This same Shia population fought tooth and nail against Iran in the Iran-Iraqi war. And do you automatically think that Shia in Saudi Arabia are going to embrace Persian influence? Just throw up their arms and say 'yes, sir brother, just bring all that chaos, economic dislocation, and bloodshed that going on in Iraq and bring them right to my family's doorstep. Hell, we'll tell the Saudis to stop sending us our annual share of the oil revenues (however unfair that share might be). We'll tell them to stuff it and we will agree to be led by Persians.' You sound like an unreformed neo con with that simplistic, and deterministic, line of thinking.

Oh, and one last thing....it sure as hell looks like a war to this old Marine. But your point there is a least arguable.

[greenbeans]

Reason #1: Save the petrodollar.

[Cymon Dendu]

MH, have you noticed that people in the Middle East hate the US in a way that they don't hate, say, China? I don't think the high bid will necessarily guarantee us the oil. But boots on the ground will.

I'm interested to hear the "several reasons" that you think got us into and keep us in Iraq. I've always thought it would be fun to stand on a street corner and do "man in the street" interviews to see how many reasons could be offered for our presence in Iraq.

Cy

[DaveL]

One bit of the overall struture of the current global status quo is going away. the whole nation state thingy is going bye bye, one way or another.

So, maybe some group will gain temporary control over the southern iraq oil fields(won't neccisarily be known as iraq) but it won't be Iranians per se. It will probabaly be some group of the people that we now call insergents.

Then it will run down and we can all go back to being human again, who evers left anway, i hope.

DaveL

[mike janket]

Overall nice post, Jim. While it appears simple, we can't have it both ways. Americans have not gotten the bad, bad news yet about our putative demise waiting in the wings, but thanks to you, Simmons, et al, it's hitting home.
I've felt folks are traveling heavily this summer as perhaps a last hurrah of sorts. Like, it may get harder and harder to travel in any modality.
What's Jim going to do when his lifeline is cut and the airlines are charging vast sums to fly from Minot to Mandan?

Mike

[German Mike]

"Every time somebody blames the politicians for this predicament, I'm reminded that the politicians are actually doing a fine job of representing what their constituents want. What they want is to not change their behavior"
...ain't that the truth!
The Iraq war is actually NOT helping us to secure the oil resource we need. The plan looked good on paper, but things didn't work out in our favor. Instead of wasting our lives, money and energy in this ill fated attempt we could but those resources to better use here at home.
How about by starting to limit ALL (like in no exception for anybody, not even NASCAR!!!) non-commercial verhicles to 100 hp and 30+mpg. You want an SUV? Fine, it has a 4-cylinder 100 hp engine. How do you think that would go over in the homeland? What a scarifice! I suppose most folks would rather sell their first born to the devil than to give up their vanity vehicle.
Nothing, other idle talk, will happen until TSHTF about 5 years from now.

[Bill]

"Everyone from the greenest greenies to the most medieval-minded Kansas Republican senator has joined in this collective wish."

More hyperbole from the perpetual wolf-crier. Less than 20% of the public has the vaguest clue about peak oil, alt fuels, etc, and those of us who do certainly don't have any faith that alt fuels would maintain the happy motoring status quo even if maintaining the staus quo was someting that was being discussed.

Maybe if Kunstler creates enough strawmen we can use the straw for ethanol...

[MicroHydro]

@Cy
A few reasons for the Iraq invasion:
1) Boost the president's popularity and get him re-elected
2) crony kleptocracy, the war has been staggeringly lucrative for several US corporations connected to the US administration
3) to remove a threat and strategic rival to Israel
4) to goose the flagging US economy with the tonic of deficit spending, always a positive stimulus in the short term
5) to increase the assets of the US Federal Reserve, also known as the national debt. This is good if you are one of the people who get to charge interest on the money created out of thin air to be loaned to the government

Furthermore, oil cargoes are not exactly tracked, fingerprinted and serial numbered. If Dr.Evil rules the middle east and claims to be boycotting the US, it still doesn't matter. As long as the oil is sold to anyone it can be resold or swapped around the world until it ends up in the US.

[steve duncan]

Another ignored coming development is outright war with the developing nations, especially China, over these dwindling oil supplies. China's economy and booming industrial development will soon consume oil at a rate dwarfing the U.S. We can't invade them, we can't stop their growth and we can't just swindle them out of the oil like we did the American Indians and their land. Nevertheless we will have to physically pummel them into submission. How? I don't see any other route than nuclear devastation. The blowback and death will be horrific but we've accepted blowback and death on a smaller scale in Iraq for the same motivations. When oil is $150 a barrel because of competition from the East we'll put the nuclear gun to China's head. We'll even pull the trigger if need be.

[Fred F]

88 percent of the American people thought the adventure in Iraq was a 'really good idea' back in 2003 when the war started.
The politicians did what the people wanted - they will always do what the vast ignorant masses want - and that is why we are going to be so truly fucked.

So hilarious BTW to hear these types of people called 'leaders' - politicians and their incestuous siblings the corporate CEO whores are they world's biggest followers.

[nil]

One thing Jim Kunstler has been saying over and over again is that it's a "juvenile belief" that "science and technology" will allow the "happy motoring" era to last.

I'd really like to know what makes him say that. Could he devote a column to show why, say, coal-to-liquids cannot provide an alternative? Are there arguments from engineering or economics backing his central assertions, or is it just sloganeering?

[humbubba]

the real reason for the ira war and possibly the iran war is not to secure the oil for flowing into
uh-merikans' SUVs. it is to keep that capacity in the ground.
that is to jack up prices. to create a peak oil scenario.
dont beleive me?
why is gasoline 3 bucks a gallon?
because 2 million barrels a day of iraqi oil is being kept in the ground. same thing for iran. when the attack comes to them and iranian oil is sequestered, then gasoline will be 6 bucks a gallon.
duck cheney, oil man. rummy, oil man. dr no actionable intelligence rice, oil (wo)man. even bush family, all oil men. ask yourself what corperations have record breaking profits? exxon mobil et al, that's who! but dont misconstrue me. oil is finite.
this can be an end game of last man standing. of course it will be a smash and grab. desperate men do desperate things.

[Paul]

"Make your voice heard in Washington," I would shout. However, I sent my Senator, Pete Domenici, an email complaining about the clamor to lower prices and the need to stick a hefty tax on gasoline in order to create a sense that gas was a luxury and to fund railroads and alternative building -- it was a long letter.

What did I get back? A response saying he appreciated my concern and was working very hard on reducing the price of gasoline.

I did receive a short, mysterious note from him several weeks later saying he read my letter and wanted me to keep him posted of my concerns. Whether that was an indication that he personally read the email or not was vague. There is no mention of what the issue is in that note.

[Mark]

Bush, Clinton, Bush ...... Stop the madness! Vote for change, not the same old Incumbent nonsense.

[bud4wiser]

JK, your essay mis-states most of the nature of the Iraq conflict.

The most compelling reasons for invading Iraq were hardly related to any kind of nation-project. The real reasons had more to do with the ego of GW Bush and the greed of Dick Chaney,et al.....

The clumsy facade of "stability" for the region can hardly disguise the abject greed of the defense industry players. This "war" was never about anything more than an idiot's bravado and embezzlement of the US treasury.

When the real costs of this boondoggle are exposed in Feb of 2009, a real accounting of America's economic weakness will become globally recognized.

It remains to be seen, how our creditors will deal with us. But rest assured, those who profited from the Iraq money-trough will have long since fortified their positions, financial and perhaps, otherwise.

[Tangurena]

>...they could do the same thing that Saddam Hussein set out to do back in 1990: extract Kuwait's remaining oil by horizontal drilling across the borderline...

Actually, you have this backwards. It was Kuwait that was drilling horizontally into Iraqi fields. And when the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam "the United States takes no position on your border dispute with Kuwait" (which is diplomatic-double-speak for "we don't care what you do") he ended up taking the whole country. Of course, to hide the evidence, the State Dept hid Ms Glaspie for 18 months to prevent Congressional subpoenas from reaching her.

[German Mike]

Nil:
" Could he devote a column to show why, say, coal-to-liquids cannot provide an alternative? Are there arguments from engineering or economics backing his central assertions, or is it just sloganeering?"
Sure, there're a variety of technologies out there, tar sands, oil shale, coal to liquids, ethanol, etc.
The problems with all of them are:
1. huge investments, in the hundreds of billions to produce an output that even makes a difference.
2. Long lead times. Even if you make the capital available, those things don't happen over night. You're looking at around 10+ years
3. Huge impact on the environment, probably a bunch of lawsuits holding things up even longer.
4. You're only postponing the ultimate problem of non-renewable energies.
5. Nobody is willing to put up billions of $$ on some speculative idea. Unless it shows a profit within 2 quarters it's not even on the radar screen.
6. Low EROEIs on all of these technologies. As rule of thumb, the lower the energy content of what you start with and the more steps are involved in processing, the lower the net energy gain.

The current ethanol industry is the shining example of low EROEI. Even coal-2-liquids has a relatively low net energy gain. It's sheer desperation. Those methods were employed by Nazi Germany during WWII and South Africa during the trade embargo. It's just enough to keep the army supplied, trains and some key industries and sometimes it's not even enough for that.
The situation on oil shale is even worse since it has a much lower energy density than coal.
I am sure we will try all those things, but they won't replace the flows necessary to keep things humming.

[Dana Jones]

"Furthermore, oil cargoes are not exactly tracked, fingerprinted and serial numbered. If Dr.Evil rules the middle east and claims to be boycotting the US, it still doesn't matter. As long as the oil is sold to anyone it can be resold or swapped around the world until it ends up in the US." Actually they are, when there is an oil spill say in San Diego, the oil can be analyzed and tracked to a specific ship from a specific region. The only difference between having the oil controlled by our Dr Evil or another Dr Evil is in how much we end up paying for it, if it has to go through another country before it gets here you can bet the price will be jacked way up. Also people have such short term memories, do YOU recall how much you paid for gas in 2000? Remember that our Dr Evil said that when we were done in Iraq, oil would cost LESS than $10 per barrel. Reminds me of back in the 60's and TPTB said that nuke power would be too cheap to meter, our electricity would basically be free. DJones

[nil]

Fred F,

The "vast ignorant masses" do not wake up one morning and start clamoring for war with Tanzania. They have to be pumped for it by years of war propaganda. 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, state supporter of terrorism, 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, new Hitler, 9/11 changed everything, Saddam, mushroom cloud over american cities...

[Peter]

Politicians wouldn't be elected if they were to spell out this grim reality. Let's see if last week's pieces in the UK Independent or Business Week will put any pressure on politicians to step out on a limb. I know that since I learned about Peak oil, many people I know would rather avoid talking to me. There are so many clueless souls out there. Shame...

[ross]

Spot on, Jim. It's not a war, and hasn't been for sometime. However, the entire tenor of the debate can be distorted by the propogandistic media mill mill through the steady employment of the loaded term, WAR. And therein lies a tale.

My view is that in a rather cruel irony, the Iraq escapade is causing unintended consequences such that the invasion of Iraq, which was meant to forestall the end of our way of life, will, in fact, hasten its demise. I say this, since had the U.S. government taken a different course and plowed the nation's resources, human, financial and otherwise, into building an entirely new energy and transportation infrastructure, the U.S. would be in a far more advantageous position today than we find ourselves in.

Jim also opines,

"Every time somebody blames the politicians for this predicament, I'm reminded that the politicians are actually doing a fine job of representing what their constituents want."

This is false. However you may feel about it. Americans want out of Iraq and are not being served in this and other regards. It's all rather tragic, since if we had had merely competent, even, heaven forfend, savvy leadership, U.S. citizens could have been led relatively painlessly towards a very different mode of life. And as in so many endeavors that require consent, it's all in the packaging. The lugubrious Jimmy Carter approach was most definitely not the ticket. No, all that would have been neccessary would've been Dutch Reagan avuncularity in the service of forward looking, progressive solutions. Alas, it was not to be.

[one Eye Open]

JHK, you really do have a lot of this backwards.

As previously mentioned, Kuwait was horizontal drillign into Iraq. And Kuwait is still horizontal drilling into Iraq. They have a long row of rigs pumping oil out of IRaq, all along the border, protected by US bases.

Its the job of the American tax payer, to protected Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil. We pay, they profit. They finance international terorism, we protect them.

The war on Iraq serves the purpose also of preventing Iraqi oil supplies from disrupting Saudi Profits. the Saudis use their profits to finance terrorism. Terrorism, gives us a reason to stay in the region.
So we help the Saudis sponser the insurgency in Iraq, to kill our soldiers, so our politicians can argue we need to stay to fight the insurgents that we are financing...

Then there's bloated corporate profits in creating and sponsering enemies, just so we can fight them.

More of our military contractors are moving to Dubai, because funds that go through the banking system there, aren't subject to international srutiny. The US can't examine those funds in order to determine where they are going. they make a perfect conduit for the financing of terrorism.

Halliburton is only the latest corporation doing sensitive military work for the US, to move to Dubai. Now Halliburton can continue to earn money from Iran, Iraq, Syria, or anyone else, without US scrutiny. They can finance terrorism and send payments to Al Qeada, and there's no way that anyone in the US would know.

[Sir Bikes-a-lot]

How much oil does the US get from Iraq? In truth we import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

The real reason we invaded Iraq is to keep the price of oil tied to the US dollar. If there was any threat to the US way of life from Iraq that was the biggest one.

So by preventing a switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro or some other currency, Bush accomplished his goal - mission acccomplished. The rest of the war is just the cost of doing business.

War is profitable. To not have gone to war would have cost us a lot more down the road.